Quote:
Originally Posted by aMindAmok
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Punk was born out of rebellion. The whole idea of Punk was to put emphasis on the message. To do so, the music was stripped down to its simplest elements and played loud and poorly. In fact, it was not considered Punk to even know how to play the instrument (from a traditional learned experience). The idea was to be as raw as possible so that the real star of the show were the words and not the music.
Metal took a different path. Metal is extremely meticulous in its musical production. Favoring complexity in the composition over the lyrical portion of the song. Metal is a showcase of talent. The overwhelming theme is to showoff how well the instruments can be played.
This is what separates Metal and Punk. They are very similar in that they both are heavily influenced by the Hard Rock era. But, they were influenced in a very different way. Punk is not Metal. In fact, most Punk Rockers in the early days would probably kick your ass for even thinking they sound like metal. They were very against the style of Metal because it was too practiced thus losing the heart of what Rock and Roll was about. Metal was the opposite of that. They chose to be the best musically and technically as their homage to Rock and Roll.
|
What you say here has its merits. Nonetheless, what separates metal from glam rock (i.e. Motley Crue, Ratt, Poison and other 80s wankery) is the lyrical content. If the song is about sex, drugs and the rock&roll lifestyle, it's not metal. I mean, other than the Immigrant Song, 95% of Led Zeppelin's lyrical content was sex & drugs. Black Sabbath had dark lyrics, and it made all the difference. Plus, nothing sounded raw like
THIS back in 1970. It's hard to believe this is freaking 46 years old.